Facebook’s revelations last month that it sold more than $100,000 worth of ads to fake accounts tied to a Russian company could usher in a change in how the Federal Election Commission governs political advertising online.
Already, 16 senators and four House members, all Democrats, are calling on the FEC to issue new rules to prevent foreign actors from using online advertising platforms to meddle in future elections.
“We write to urge the Federal Election Commission to develop new guidance for advertising platforms on how to prevent illicit foreign spending in U.S. elections,” the Democrats wrote in a letter to FEC Chairman Steven Walther on Sept. 20. “The recent revelations that foreign nationals with suspected ties to the Russian government sought to influence the 2016 election through social media advertisements are deeply concerning and demand a response.”
But the questions of how and whether to regulate political advertisements online have been a source of deep divide within the FEC since well before the 2016 presidential election, and are likely to prompt more debate among the commission should it decide to issue new regulations for political spending online.
The FEC took its first step in exploring a change in the rules on disclaimers for online advertisements when it unanimously voted on Sept. 14 to reopen the period for public comment on a rulemaking notice related to online advertising.
Though the Republican and Democratic members of the commission voted together, there were disagreements over whether the rules are necessary and if the FEC is moving too fast, particularly as numerous congressional investigations and a federal probe into Russian meddling continues.
“I’ve drawn no conclusions, by the way, about what the ads said or if they’re even in our jurisdiction because I have no idea what the text of those ads said,” Republican commissioner Lee Goodman said of Facebook’s Russian-financed ads during the meeting.
The FEC requires political ads on television and the radio to include disclaimers notifying viewers and listeners of who paid for the ads. But Facebook asked the FEC in 2011 if it could run political ads without those disclaimers. The company argued the size of its ads as well as character counts made it both impractical and inconvenient to include disclaimers.
The FEC deadlocked on whether to grant Facebook an exemption from disclaimer rules, resulting in a non-decision from the agency.
But following its findings last month that 3,000 ads were purchased by 470 accounts tied to a Russian troll farm during the 2016 campaign, Facebook appears to have changed its tune.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced last month “not only will you have to disclose which page paid for an ad, but we will also make it so you can visit an advertiser’s page and see the ads that are currently running to any audience on Facebook.”
A Facebook spokesperson told the Washington Examiner the company is “open to reviewing any specific congressional proposals.”
Though Zuckerberg’s announcement was praised as ushering in a new era of transparency for the platform, lawmakers want to see action from the FEC, too, especially heading into the 2018 midterm elections.
“Time is of the essence here with the revelation that there is foreign interference from the Russians, and there could be from others as well, on these online ad platforms like Facebook,” Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., told the Washington Examiner. “We have to make sure there’s guidelines in place, best practices that the industry understands they need to deploy quickly so foreign interference can be caught before the next election cycle.”
Sarbanes was one of the 20 Democrats who sent the letter to the FEC asking the agency to develop guidelines for online advertising platforms.
The Maryland Democrat believes the FEC has been slow to respond to the spending that’s occurring with campaigns, which he attributed to gridlock among the commissioners and an unwillingness to engage.
But the conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, and the growing role that companies such as Twitter and Facebook played with providing Russian actors with a platform to spread political ads and fake news, could spur action from the commission, Sarbanes said.
“Here’s the opportunity for the FEC to have its moment of glory, to come together, address in a neutral, nonpartisan way the threat that’s coming from outside the country,” he said. “Nothing could be more patriotic than that. This could be the FEC’s finest hour, and that’s what we’re encouraging them to do, is stand up and say this isn’t about Republicans or Democrats or Independents. This is about our election process, the bedrock of our democracy, and making sure that is protected.”
The FEC has debated whether to address political advertisements online before. In 2014, then-Democratic FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel issued a statement urging the commission to reconsider disclosure rules for Internet advertisements, and accused the commission of turning a “blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena.”
Ravel faced backlash for her statement, and the issue of the FEC requiring Internet platforms to adhere to disclosure rules led to concerns from Republicans that free speech could be stifled and websites or political blogs could come under the FEC’s scrutiny.
But Ravel continued to push the issue, and in 2015, the FEC wrestled with how to ensure foreign actors weren’t spending money on political advertisements.
During an October 2015 meeting, as the commission began discussing a memo from Ravel prohibiting foreign nationals from spending money on ballot initiatives at the local and state level, the commissioner raised the potential for Russian influence in the election.
“It threatens the overall integrity [of] elections throughout this country,” Ravel said. “I mean, think of it, do we want Vladimir Putin or drug cartels to be influencing American elections? The commission shouldn’t.”
Ravel, now three years after she pushed the agency to consider how foreign actors could use online platforms, is claiming vindication.
“I warned that Vladimir Putin could meddle in our elections nearly three years ago, as vice chair of the Federal Election Commission,” Ravel wrote in Politico last month. “Our vulnerabilities seemed obvious: The FEC’s antiquated policies refer to fax machines and teletypes, but barely mention modern technological phenomena like social media, YouTube and bots. The inadequacy of the FEC’s current regulations makes it practically impossible for both regulators and citizens to determine if the funding for a political advertisement online came from a domestic source or an enemy abroad. We had left the window wide open for foreign interference.”
But Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform at the Campaign Legal Center, said the U.S. was unprepared for a broad-based foreign influence effort such as the one Russia waged during the 2016 election.
“In modern times, we haven’t really seen an extensive foreign influence effort, and the degradation of our campaign finance laws over the last several years and the rise of new forms of political campaigning online have helped create this perfect storm for Russia or other foreign actors to influence our democracy,” he told the Washington Examiner. “Adding to that mix the desire by Facebook and other tech companies to escape any form of regulation and the willingness of both parties to allow that, to allow Facebook and other tech companies free rein, has helped contribute to this atmosphere.”
Fischer said he hopes as the FEC begins discussing disclosure rules once again, the commission considers Facebook’s change in its approach to disclaimers.
But he said future efforts to combat foreign interference in U.S. elections can’t rest solely on the regulatory agencies or the private sector, but rather needs to be a joint effort.
“The FEC, there’s limits to what it can do because Congress needs to update its statutes with regard to the Internet age and what we’ve seen happen in the 2016 election and efforts with foreign interference,” he said. “Any legislative or regulatory efforts should include input from the private sector. Facebook and other tech companies have built very successful businesses, and we don’t want to interfere with that, but I’m certain Facebook and other tech companies have productive ideas for how they can combat foreign interference.”
